Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

AMC shows plenty of movies. Tonight they are showing 2 or 3 of the Die Hard movies. It shouldn't matter if you watch it, it was in your package and now you're losing it. Are you getting any money back? Just because they can do it doesn't mean they should. And who says AMC is asking for an unreasonable increase? They are one of the few channels that is actually coming up with new in house programming. Which by the way. quite a few people must like.

AMC shows plenty of movies. Tonight they are showing 2 or 3 of the Die Hard movies. It shouldn't matter if you watch it, it was in your package and now you're losing it. Are you getting any money back? Just because they can do it doesn't mean they should. And who says AMC is asking for an unreasonable increase? They are one of the few channels that is actually coming up with new in house programming. Which by the way. quite a few people must like.

I watched Walking Dead... I also watched the Talking Dead afterwards. I know some watch Mad Men and the Killing.

I think maybe I watched a made-for-TV movie once or twice... but that's about it.

If there are 20 channels in a package tier and each of them want a 40 cent increase per channel... then you have an $8 increase every year for that tier. Worse for tiers like the basic tier that have more channels in them.

The problem with Dish is that cable and DirecTV haven't been as much in the fight as Dish has. IF all the providers would balk a little at the negotiating table, our prices might be lower than they are.

AMC shows plenty of movies. Tonight they are showing 2 or 3 of the Die Hard movies. It shouldn't matter if you watch it, it was in your package and now you're losing it. Are you getting any money back? Just because they can do it doesn't mean they should. And who says AMC is asking for an unreasonable increase? They are one of the few channels that is actually coming up with new in house programming. Which by the way. quite a few people must like.

If this happens, your bill isn't going up because of AMC, so while you may not be getting any money put back into your pocket, you aren't having anymore taken out of it, either.

Its not as if AMC is asking for the same price they got two years ago, and Dish decided to dump them so they could save money and not pass that savings onto you.

AMC is asking for more money that is ultimately going to come out of the customers pocket. Dish doesn't feel like they have enough customers who watch AMC to justify an unreasonable price increase for all their customers who don't, and the few that do, have alternatives, though not exactly very desirable (3 bucks per episode is insane), but at least the costs would be shouldered by the people who consume the content and not those who don't.

A la carte would achieve that too, but AMC isn't very likely to agree to it

As for unreasonable increase, that's up to each individual to decide based on how much they value AMC's content (though I'd argue that any price increase is unreasonable for people who don't watch the channels). But assuming this is even partly because of money and not solely about company egos, Dish determined the price increase was unreasonable for their business and majority of their customers.

AMC is asking for more money that is ultimately going to come out of the customers pocket. Dish doesn't feel like they have enough customers who watch AMC to justify an unreasonable price increase for all their customers who don't, and the few that do, have alternatives, though not exactly very desirable (3 bucks per episode is insane), but at least the costs would be shouldered by the people who consume the content and not those who don't.

If only more of you thought the same regarding ESPN. I've seen analyst reports indicating that the a-la-carte price would be anywhere from 25 to 35 dollars per month.

Since 1995 the average cable bill has increased 122%, while TV consumption per household just 13%.

What everyone is failing to get, it is to much of a Coincidence that DISH is being sued for a ton of money by the same company that owns the channels being dropped. I think chances are the DISH is punishing them instead of the so called unreasonable price increase that they claim is happening. In the end, the customer gets less channels to choose from and less channels in the package that we are paying for.

What everyone is failing to get, it is to much of a Coincidence that DISH is being sued for a ton of money by the same company that owns the channels being dropped. I think chances are the DISH is punishing them instead of the so called unreasonable price increase that they claim is happening. In the end, the customer gets less channels to choose from and less channels in the package that we are paying for.

More than likely there is an element of vendictiveness on Dishes part, its also no secret that AMC wants more money for their improved content offerings (but the problem is they want it from everyone in the package, not just the people who watch it, which could very well be a very insignificant portion of the Dish subscriber base. AMCs highest rated series, on for only 12 weeks out of the year, drew 8 million viewers across Directv, Verison, Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, ATT, and Dish, etc. With that many companies offering AMC how many Dish subscribers are watching? At what point does Dish concern itself with the costs for the majority over the content desires of the minority)?

Going by past negotiations, Dish most likely feels like AMC is asking to much, and the lawsuit just added more fuel to Dishes desire not to do business with AMC under current conditions.

But what's to say the next four channels they dump are ones you watch? Same with ESPN. Of course there are people that hate sports and hate to subsidize the sports lovers. Dish recognizes where the majority of the viewers desires lie and its sports. The point is if they take away AMC and you don't care and then they take away The Discovery Channel and you do care but I don't, we both lose our channel. United we stand, divided we fall.

But what's to say the next four channels they dump are ones you watch? Same with ESPN. Of course there are people that hate sports and hate to subsidize the sports lovers. Dish recognizes where the majority of the viewers desires lie and its sports. The point is if they take away AMC and you don't care and then they take away The Discovery Channel and you do care but I don't, we both lose our channel. United we stand, divided we fall.

I do not believe television is worth invoking Martin Niemöller.

While it is good to respect that someone else's favorite channel being "lost" is important and not be totally self focused and not care, the channel lineup is not shrinking with every negotiation.

Most negotiations go fine. The channels stay and no one gets hurt. Something goes wrong with a provider and panic sets in?

If AMC offers or accepts a fair price for carriage their channels will remain on DISH Network. If they don't then they can go away. Hopefully something will be worked out (as is usually the case).

If only more of you thought the same regarding ESPN. I've seen analyst reports indicating that the a-la-carte price would be anywhere from 25 to 35 dollars per month.

A la carte (as we've discussed many times on this forum) would kill most channels... and we'd be left with the choice to pay the same for far less channels. Today, that same proposed $25-$35 for ESPN gets you ESPN and a ton of other channels.

I know people like to blame ESPN for the cost of their packages... but even if ESPN is $5-$6 as some people have claimed, that is still a small part of the package that they are contained within... and it is a fairly popular suite of channels.

Also... the interesting twist that nobody considers... ESPN bids high for sports events because they are getting a lot of money from being in basic tiers...If you taken them out of a basic tier and go a la carte, they would have to charge more... but people wouldn't be willing to pay too much more... so ESPN would then start bidding lower for those same sports to reduce their costs. So... when projecting how much they would need to charge a la carte, you have to factor that in.

Personally... I'm thinking $15-$20... basically in the neighborhood of what HBO and other premium channel suits cost a la carte is where ESPN would settle. That would actually be fair to me and I would probably still subscribe at that price though I would drop something else that I don't watch... which would mean some other lower charging channel wouldn't be getting money from me anymore.

What everyone is failing to get, it is to much of a Coincidence that DISH is being sued for a ton of money by the same company that owns the channels being dropped. I think chances are the DISH is punishing them instead of the so called unreasonable price increase that they claim is happening. In the end, the customer gets less channels to choose from and less channels in the package that we are paying for.

No failure here... I'm sure it is related... and there's no reason why it can't be. What makes you think Rainbow isn't asking for a price increase to pay for the money they think Dish owes them per the lawsuit? I'm sure Rainbow's request for a price increase is not a coincidence either.

But what's to say the next four channels they dump are ones you watch? Same with ESPN. Of course there are people that hate sports and hate to subsidize the sports lovers. Dish recognizes where the majority of the viewers desires lie and its sports. The point is if they take away AMC and you don't care and then they take away The Discovery Channel and you do care but I don't, we both lose our channel. United we stand, divided we fall.

They already took away some HD feeds that I watched (DisneyXD, ESPNNews) and don't have ESPNUHD because of their Disney dispute... so, yeah, I'm already feeling the pain of missing a channel or two... I also liked 5-6 of those Voom channels that Rainbow wouldn't let Dish keep.

If only more of you thought the same regarding ESPN. I've seen analyst reports indicating that the a-la-carte price would be anywhere from 25 to 35 dollars per month.

I'd love to see ESPN go away, especially if it would result in a fee reduction.

What everyone is failing to get, it is to much of a Coincidence that DISH is being sued for a ton of money by the same company that owns the channels being dropped. I think chances are the DISH is punishing them instead of the so called unreasonable price increase that they claim is happening.

Frankly, there's not that much on ESPN I watch until college football season begins. And nothing I couldn't live without. So heck, ESPN, start charging a la carte and see how many subs you get!

The issue is this: Disney owns ESPN. They also own ABC. When contract time comes up, they play the "if you want to carry your local ABC station, you have to carry ESPN, Disney, and ABC Family in such-and-such a tier" game. That is really why local stations disappear from lineups over contract disputes. It is Disney/Fox/etc that force the bundling.

I highly suspect that many of you who do not want ESPN would find the loss of ABC or Disney to be unacceptable - after all, ABC's programming is much higher rated than anything on AMC (same for ESPN) but there are plenty of howlers out there who will leave Dish over losing AMC.

Like it or not, sports drives the television market. Advertising rates are highest for NFL games, College football games, NBA games etc. Take ESPN off the lower tiers and the complaining will be coming from the advertisers because they would be losing a huge amount of viewers. It's all about the $$$$!

If AMC and IFC would go back to being commercial free, then I would noy have problems with a fee increase; I do not think DISH would either. We, the channel, had commercials from day one and Sundance is still commercial free.

Before the days of TCM, and a few years afterwards, AMC (American Movie Classics) was a good source for commercial free movies; from the 30s - 60s. But, Rainbow Media decided that commercials, newer movies and reruns was a better route. IFC (Independent Film Channel) was a great source for independent and foreaign films; all commercial free, then Rainbow turned to commercials, and reuns. Though, it is a good source for The Three Stooges in the afternoon. But, these changes drove me away. Just like, FxM did with Fox Movie Channel; another bastion that is no longer commercial free.

The end result, for the most part, AMC, IFC, and We really do not differ much from what is available on USA, TNT, OWN, A&E, Lifetime, Spike, etc. Recent reruns and recent movies cut to pieces, with commercials, and infomercials at the wee hours of the morning. Rainbow just took a page from ViaCom and NBC Universal; show recent reruns, infomercials and extend a movie almost an hour with commercials.

If AMC and IFC would go back to being commercial free, then I would noy have problems with a fee increase; I do not think DISH would either. We, the channel, had commercials from day one and Sundance is still commercial free.

Before the days of TCM, and a few years afterwards, AMC (American Movie Classics) was a good source for commercial free movies; from the 30s - 60s. But, Rainbow Media decided that commercials, newer movies and reruns was a better route. IFC (Independent Film Channel) was a great source for independent and foreaign films; all commercial free, then Rainbow turned to commercials, and reuns. Though, it is a good source for The Three Stooges in the afternoon. But, these changes drove me away. Just like, FxM did with Fox Movie Channel; another bastion that is no longer commercial free.

The end result, for the most part, AMC, IFC, and We really do not differ much from what is available on USA, TNT, OWN, A&E, Lifetime, Spike, etc. Recent reruns and recent movies cut to pieces, with commercials, and infomercials at the wee hours of the morning. Rainbow just took a page from ViaCom and NBC Universal; show recent reruns, infomercials and extend a movie almost an hour with commercials.

And at the same time started creating original programming, one series of which has gone on to be the highest rated show in cable history, and another that is one of the most buzzed about shows on TV.

Well worth the trade off for a lot of people, and is giving AMC the ammunition to ask for fee increases (though like all providers I wish they'd be more reasonable about what they ask for).

A la carte (as we've discussed many times on this forum) would kill most channels... and we'd be left with the choice to pay the same for far less channels. Today, that same proposed $25-$35 for ESPN gets you ESPN and a ton of other channels.

I also liked 5-6 of those Voom channels that Rainbow wouldn't let Dish keep.

If you need an example of how much A la carte would cost all you have to do is look at the foreign channels. Have you ever read the posts by Hindi subs who suddenly "lost" one channel out of their pack. The channel was still available if you paid about $35 extra! What the tier-based packs give us is an economy of scale. If you add up what the per-sub costs would be for any tier you would see that we actually get a good bang for our buck.

As for Voom, I stand behind Dish. Even though I never subbed to the pack (I did not have any HD programming at the time) I observed that the content was diluted. Too many repeats that could have delivered on fewer channels. Dish was right Rainbow was wrong. But it was Rainbow's choice as the content producer to offer those channels in that format. Without any other MSO's (other than Rainbow's own Cablevision) the whole concept was doomed from the start. Voom needed Dish more than Dish needed VOOM in order to survive. Also the timing was not right for VOOM. As one of the first HD nets they should have had an SD counterpart as there were not enough HD ready households that could subscribe.

As for Voom, I stand behind Dish. Even though I never subbed to the pack (I did not have any HD programming at the time) I observed that the content was diluted. Too many repeats that could have delivered on fewer channels. Dish was right Rainbow was wrong. But it was Rainbow's choice as the content producer to offer those channels in that format. Without any other MSO's (other than Rainbow's own Cablevision) the whole concept was doomed from the start. Voom needed Dish more than Dish needed VOOM in order to survive. Also the timing was not right for VOOM. As one of the first HD nets they should have had an SD counterpart as there were not enough HD ready households that could subscribe.

To be sure... I am with Dish on the Voom decision too. Rainbow was running the company like clowns the color of the rainbow!

I was just noting that I did like some of those Voom channels, along with the Disney HD feeds, that we have lost due to dispute... so I have some skin in the game in that I supported Dish's stance against Rainbow Media and lost some channels I liked as a result.

But you know...

Wouldn't it be cool (albeit entirely unlikely of course) IF the potential drop of the rest of Rainbow's channels forces some re-thinking at Rainbow?

I used to argue that IFC could have had an HD feed incorporating a couple of the Voom channels that showed Independent films... In a dream world, someone would wake up at Rainbow and realize that if they stopped the lawsuit nonsense and negotiated in good faith... Dish might be interested in those 5 HD channels + the current AMC, IFC, etc. ones all in HD... and Rainbow could have a nice well-rounded suite of channels to sell to DirecTV and other cable companies to boot.

And at the same time started creating original programming, one series of which has gone on to be the highest rated show in cable history, and another that is one of the most buzzed about shows on TV.

Well worth the trade off for a lot of people, and is giving AMC the ammunition to ask for fee increases (though like all providers I wish they'd be more reasonable about what they ask for).

I do not remember when "Mad Men" premeiered, but it certainly wasn't back in 2000 when AMC started adding commercials. It was effectively, a limited TCM, but with commercials. First run programming, on AMC, is a relatively recent devlopment. But, for the few hours of original programming, they are not HBO or Showtime either. AMC is a premium wannabe. But, they won't get there with The Three Stooges and 30 to 60 minutes of commercials for the movies they do show.

DISH is doing the right thing here. While I do not like losing channels, I think what Rainbow is asking for will not only be refused by DISH, but other carriers as well. AMC, IFC, We and Sundance may go the way of VOOM. Putting greed ahead of content.

I do not remember when "Mad Men" premeiered, but it certainly wasn't back in 2000 when AMC started adding commercials. It was effectively, a limited TCM, but with commercials. First run programming, on AMC, is a relatively recent devlopment. But, for the few hours of original programming, they are not HBO or Showtime either. AMC is a premium wannabe. But, they won't get there with The Three Stooges and 30 to 60 minutes of commercials for the movies they do show.

DISH is doing the right thing here. While I do not like losing channels, I think what Rainbow is asking for will not only be refused by DISH, but other carriers as well. AMC, IFC, We and Sundance may go the way of VOOM. Putting greed ahead of content.

Ok so it took them a few years to get their ducks in a row and be able to start producing original programming. My point was that they may have alienated a few viewers such as yourself, but they've made a whole lot of viewers happy, and have found new success that they never had before.

Them not being on the same level as HBO and Showtime is your opinion. Again, highest rated show in cable history (one of the most awarded shows in cable history as well), you may not like it, but a lot of other people do. Besides, I don't really see what that has to do with anything since they aren't a pay channel, they are on the same playing field as TBS, TNT, Syfy etc. Critically, and prestige wise, they have all those channels beat hands down.

At any rate, I would take 12 hours of TWD a year over a lifetime of commercial free catalog films, most of which are likely available in other places. Everything else AMC offers is gravy. I'm sure I'm not alone (infact I know I'm not).